Forum:Spotting OOU items
I just wanted to get straight the procedure we have here for items that are identified by OOU reasoning (ie, things we recognise that are not referred to as such by dialogue or on-screen writing). It may be I'm making a meal out of this, but it's a little bit of a confusing thing! *It seems that, if an item is referenced IU by dialogue, on-screen writing, or prose in books, then it is article worthy (eg SigSauer P228, dog, California Plaza). Then, if we spot other instances of those things occurring, we use OOU knowledge to match the things up (ie. Joseph Wald's dog was never called a dog IU, but we can add it to the pre-existing "dog" article because in the Rookie one of the robbers shouted "shut up dog!"). Similarly, if on page 293 of a declassified novel a Sig Sauer is mentioned, then every time a Sig Sauer appears in an episode of the tv show, that information is also eligible on the Sig Sauer article. Also similarly, information about the location that Palmer gives a speech in Day 2: 7:00am-8:00am can go on the California Plaza article, because that's where the location was filmed and we recognise it. *However, all this is dependent on not receiving contradictory IU information (ie, we can't say that Crescent Collectibles was located in North Hollywood, because although it was filmed there it is stated in dialogue to be located in Visalia). *Then, if objects are never identified by dialogue IU, they are not article-worthy, but they are allowed to be included in the text of IU articles. Say, for the sake of argument, that the word "door" was never used in 24. We wouldn't have a problem with including "Jack then walked through a door" in an IU character article. Similarly, it is OK to say "Jack then shot two bad guys with his accuracy international sniper rifle", however we can't then wikilink the name of the gun. This goes contrary to the assertion that "every proper noun should have an article". *Finally, lists of OOU-spotted items are allowed, like for weapons and vehicles etc., but all on one big article. Have I got all of this right? If so, and I can word it slightly more elegantly, can this be integrated into some part of the manual of style or the policy page to help people out that make articles for weapons and things like that? --Acer4666 14:50, April 20, 2011 (UTC) : I'm down with that. I'm also down with listening to any arguments for changing this criteria, if you disagree with any of it. --proudhug 17:37, April 20, 2011 (UTC) :: The claim that we can write out proper nouns in articles, if the proper nouns were not mentioned themselves (Accuracy International for your example) doesn't seem to fit at all... especially for iu articles. First, it's asking for lots of confusion and trouble. Someone will come along and redlink it or worse, create an IU article for the thing. Second, what's the point of it? "The FBI agents searched through Bill's house, and as they rummaged through his IKEA EXPEDIT desk, looked underneath his Nova 10394 1 Light Pearson Table Lamp Pecan/Brushed Nickel lamp, and browsed through his Smarmy Family Memories '06 Keepsake Deluxe Limited Edition Photo Album, he confronted the FBI agent wearing the Clarks dress shoes." 19:44, April 20, 2011 (UTC) : LMAO. Word! --proudhug 19:47, April 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Hahaha, Very true! But the problem for me is what we call "technical terms" - we already have Dana Walsh being "waterboarded", Nina explaining Stockholm Syndrome to Kim, etc, etc, and some proper nouns have fallen into common parlance and would seem necessary in explaining certain things (Jack sellotaped the note to his desk)--Acer4666 19:57, April 20, 2011 (UTC) : I'd say that stuff is perfectly fine in Ep Guides and other oou content in limited doses. But, not on character and IU pages, since anything worth mentioning there has already been identified on the show and probably has its own page anyway. 04:39, April 21, 2011 (UTC) :: I agree, but how do you think is a good way to word that for the policy? Just "no proper nouns in IU articles unless they have articles"? That means we would still allow "Dana Walsh was then waterboarded", or "Jack then pulled out a dual-action 9mm tactical assault rifle". Saying "no technical terms" isn't a specific thing, as if we're being pedantic the word "door" could be classed as a technical term. We could say "exercise judgement by not going into too much extraneous detail when describing objects not identified in-universe"--Acer4666 10:50, April 21, 2011 (UTC) ::: Haha, the way you put it, I couldn't have phrased it better myself, besides throwing in something like "...by avoiding oou proper nouns unless deemed necessary for understanding an event". 14:40, April 21, 2011 (UTC)